Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate. It has given me an opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject that I have spent a number of years having to consider, on the basis that I was a Member of Parliament for Stirlingshire and Clackmannanshire in central Scotland. The central Scottish coalfield was literally under my patch. We were always preoccupied with the question of how we would continue to get the coal and put it into the famous Longannet power station. As a consequence, I have taken an interest in the subject.
	For 10 years, I was fortunate enough to be chair of a Select Committee in the other House. We considered long-term issues such as security of supply. Despite our perspicacity and our willingness to consider the longer term, governments—governments of both complexions—were never that clear about the longer-term consequences. In the 1990s, the Conservative administrations did not think much beyond the attractiveness of gas and the continuing likelihood that there would be sufficient supplies in the North Sea, certainly well into the teens if not the twenties of this century. That almost complacent approach was carried on by the Labour Administration after 1997.
	We pointed out to the Government that we were going to become net importers of gas and oil in the early part of the century, and the Select Committee produced a report in 2002 drawing attention to the vexed question of the absence of appropriate storage facilities. The Government—perhaps because they are new Labour and perhaps because they have embraced the market with the enthusiasm of a recent convert—were blind to the fact that the market does not always respond when opportunities are available. There might well be other opportunities for those international operations to look elsewhere to make more money rather than go to the trouble of finding storage facilities that are not necessarily very popular, as recent planning applications indicate. Equally, in the North Sea, there will be competition for storage in the future. We may have to find a location for the carbon that could be sequestrated if we are to have another development in coal power. I would not rule that out altogether, but, at the moment, the technology is not mature enough for us to mortgage our energy future on it.
	It could be said that there is a proliferation of options, none of which is available to us at present. That does not in any way deter some of the enthusiasts for advancing those options, such as biomass, the consequence of limited resources. I know from experience in Scotland that the Scottish timber harvest is being distorted because of the location in Lockerbie of a potential timber-burning power station. It will attract renewable funding, it will be subsidised, and it will distort the price of timber for other activities, such as timber processing, which will become increasingly dependent on the construction industry, in which planking and the like is now made from, as it were, baked timber, rather than the old wood or other forms. My point is that the unintended consequences law is being brought into play in a number of aspects of renewables. I am not against wind power. I know a number of farming businesses that would benefit from having wind farms on their land, which would keep many of them sustainable. That is an argument that some tree huggers and others forget. We cannot be dependent on renewables as a substitute for a sizeable part of our base-load generating capacity.
	We could take up to about another 50 per cent gas generation—maybe 10 per cent more than we have at the moment. That still leaves the gap that will be left with the closure of many coal-fired power stations, but I would caution against closing them all. There is a case for coal, which is not just about carbon sequestration. If that does not work in the way that people like, we have to ensure that we are prepared to allow a certain amount of CO to be expelled into the air by the generation of electricity from coal for the simple reason that coal is so flexible. As a power source it can be switched on remarkably quickly—not quite as attractively or as quickly as hydro power, but, unfortunately, we do not have enough of that kind of water in the UK. It would be foolhardy to throw out the coal baby with the bath water, so to speak.
	That brings us to the option of nuclear. I am not critical of the Government for not making up their mind on the nuclear issue so far. I say that because, frankly, we still have a sufficiency of generating capability in the UK. The storage issue will, within about two years, by and large be addressed. The manipulation of statistics to suggest that this will be the year, since we have not had a cold winter for 42 years, is doing the professional statistician something of a disservice. It is clear that we have to recognise that we might have difficulties this year, but it would be wrong to go down the alarmist road which the director-general of the CBI is taking us. Digby Jones is known for his enthusiasm. I think that on this occasion he has been carried away by understandable fears, but which can be unnecessarily exaggerated.
	We have to recognise that we have seen not just the decline in the British security of supply that we have enjoyed because of the North Sea. We recognise that there are other parts of the North Sea—indeed, parts which have been worked already—which could be exploited. There are more difficult, less easy-to-process reserves of oil in the North Sea that could be brought out and used in the transport part of the energy equation.
	We must recognise that the dramatic increase in the impact on the world market of the Indian and Chinese veracious appetite for energy has meant that prices are being affected and supply chains distorted in ways that we had not anticipated two or three years ago. As one who took advantage of the Select Committee system to get in many of the best brains and the best informed people in the energy business, I know that the issue of China and India even three years ago was not enjoying the position in our minds that it correctly enjoys now. In part at least, the Government can be excused for some of the blame that the noble Baroness has sought to lay against them. But they are beginning to run out of places to hide. Therefore we need to address the nuclear issue in a systematic and realistic way.
	For a start, it was wrong to assume that by 2019 there will be no more AGRs. We forget that when the lifetime of a nuclear power station was established, if I may use that word, it was no more than a guesstimate. No one really knew. It is quite possible that life-extension arrangements using proper safety considerations can be applied to a number of the AGRs. We are in danger of being unduly pessimistic about this and we should not deny ourselves the right to look into it seriously. We need to look at how we would go about it. Last week the Financial Times provided a helpful checklist of what needs to be done. I remember that the points to address are quite straightforward, but I shall check my notes because I had better get them right.
	As I say, there is the question of life extension. The waste storage settlement needs to be looked at. It is ridiculous that the report is taking so dashed long to come out. Indeed, I doubt whether some of the people who set up the inquiry did not do so on the basis that they wanted to frustrate the nuclear industry. They thought that the issue would go away, and that is regrettable. We also need a proper assessment of the costs, if such a thing is possible. We have to approach this with a good deal more humility than did the previous speaker. If there is one thing that has been consistently wrong with the energy policy of this country, it has been our constant failure to get the sums right on nuclear power.
	If there are people who are agnostic about or hostile to nuclear power, they have very good grounds for it. Let us not forget the way in which nuclear power stations were costed and built, and how each power station is slightly different in character, each with one or other bell and whistle. One of the costs borne by the AGR programme at the moment is the result of the slightly different design of each one, and therefore there is no consistent programme of maintenance. We have got to make sure that when we talk about a new fleet of nuclear power stations, they will be built within a narrow range with few differences. It may be that we have two models or that we go just for one. But that is what we need to look at in the immediate short term.
	I am conscious of the time and I shall be finished in a moment. We need equally to look to the City and to those who will seek to invest in the industry. We must ensure that the regulatory regime is of a character which can assure potential investors that there is a degree of security in their investment. We are talking about a commitment of 40 years and we cannot have blips of the kind that took place in 2002 with British Energy. I could go on for longer, but I do not wish to abuse the tolerance of the House in my first speech. Suffice it to say that the nuclear issue is once more on the agenda. The Government are setting themselves a realistic timetable in which to bring forward the means of appraisal, and by 2015 I think that we could still see the first nuclear power station generating electricity.
	I do not take the Independent's view that it will take 10 years to build a power station. It can be done in five years. But we have to get in place the planning processes, the financial systems and the choice of reactors—and all this must be done within the next two or three years. If we can do that, I am confident that electricity generation and the longer-term security of supply in this country will be possible and achievable.

Lord Tombs: My Lords, I add my congratulations those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, on his maiden speech. His work on the Select Committee in another place was always an inspiration, and I am sure that he will contribute in a similar vein in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may remind him in passing that when I was chairman of that now-defunct body the South of Scotland Electricity Board, I had the pleasure of writing to consumers to say that we were not raising our tariffs because of the economic contribution made by the considerable amount of nuclear power then installed. That was not very well received by the environmental lobbyists, but it gave me a great deal of pleasure anyway. Perhaps I may further add that the nuclear industry today is quite capable of competing with fossil fuels when it is not being sabotaged by government and Ofgem, as was the case in NETA.
	We are talking today about long-term energy policy. It is the nub of the present vacuum in the Government's energy policy, which, as has been said many times—but I shall repeat it again—seeks to pursue idealised and inconsistent objectives. The energy supplies available to us are, broadly speaking, fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables. Reliance recently has been on gas and renewables. The characteristics of renewables are certainly that they produce no CO which is very important, but also that they are a very diffuse supply, requiring expensive capital investment and large terrain requirements. They are also variable and have unpredictable availability. They make a substantial contribution to CO savings, but at great financial and environmental cost. They do not provide a basis for central electricity supply. They are unsuitable for continuous supply.
	The subsidy of wind was estimated by the Government last year to be £30 billion to 2020. I contrast that with the figure quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, of £1.3 billion to £1.6 billion which the first nuclear power station will reputedly require. I do not accept that figure, but I contrast it anyway with the £30 billion committed, on a limited-time basis, to wind power.
	The greater part of our energy supply system today is based on fossil fuels. Gas was cheap; it is now growing a great deal more expensive as world demand and political factors drive the price upwards. It is also quite a big contributor to CO pollution. The subject of CO pollution is growing in importance and is becoming increasingly recognised. There is no doubt in my mind that climate change will come to dominate many of our discussions in a way that it has never done in the past.
	Government policy is short term, based, I fear, on the electoral cycle and peripatetic Ministers and civil servants. The decisions that are taken affect a long time ahead, perhaps as long as 50 years, given construction times and the life of the plant. In light of that time scale, to continue to rely so heavily on fossil fuels is economically hazardous and will hasten climate change with unpredictable results. Government attempts to square that circle by reliance on renewables is misconceived and stems largely from a failure to face the facts.
	Reliance on market forces to secure the future, so heavily prized by government, is an illusion. We do not have a free market; we have a highly manipulated one, and we have seen some disastrous effects of that already. More will certainly follow. No market is able to take a view on investments with the time scale that we are considering—that is, the long term.
	As has been said, the new economies of Asia and South America are already challenging industrialised nations and increasing pressure on fossil fuel costs. Their advantage of cheap labour and growing productivity finds us deliberately increasing energy costs at home through reliance on imported gas, oil and coal and subsidies for renewables.
	I have touched on the question of regulation and its part in economic viability, particularly of nuclear power but also of coal. Regulation is an important part of what is virtually a monopoly supply industry, but it must not be confused with long-term planning. At present, I believe that Ofgem's ambitions exceed its powers and experience in its attempts, laudable though they may be, to fill the vacuum in government policy on long-term issues. We must develop a reliable energy supply—reliable in electricity supply terms and in economic terms, based on nuclear power. That will not be easy, given the fragmented nature of the electricity supply industry and the prolonged procrastination by the Government; but it is now urgent. There are some welcome signs of intent but as yet, for me, no grounds for optimism.
	The first requirement is government commitment to the long term, notably lacking to date; and in particular—this point may be controversial but I believe that it should be listened to carefully—the often expressed belief that decisions on new nuclear capacity must await a "solution" to long-term radioactive waste storage. That plea has been used as an excuse for evading the issue—a point hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill. The need for long-term storage provision is with us now in the shape of the legacy of waste from our weapons programmes and the earlier nuclear stations. It is not avoidable, and it is certainly not intractable. As other nations have shown, the technology exists to tackle it; and we have to tackle it regardless of whether not we build new nuclear capacity. To confuse those two decisions is, quite frankly, opportunist and misleading.
	I close my deliberately brief speech by congratulating the noble Baroness on directing the attention of the House to the long term in energy matters. I hope that we may now see the Government address it in a like manner.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and if he was going to touch on this point, I hope that he will forgive me, but, with his particular knowledge of the Severn Estuary and south-east Wales, what is his view on the potential of a Severn barrage? Does he take the view that I and, more importantly, a number of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, do that the endlessly renewable energies of the Severn Estuary are an asset of which we should take full advantage?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I add my name to the list of speakers who have preceded me in thanking my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for opening this debate today. It was she who remarked that this is the first of two interesting debates in the House this autumn, the second one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, on the subject of global warming. The two subjects are the obverse and reverse of the same coin. This debate, in a sense, is a part of that debate, and that debate, in a sense—although it is two weeks' later—must inevitably be a part of this debate.
	If there is to be a solution to the problem of global warming, it will be found in the decisions that are taken in the energy field. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, remarked to me many years ago, when we were serving together on the Science and Technology Committee, that mankind had only one source of energy, and that was derived from nuclear power. He went on to say that nowadays we have a choice between a nuclear reactor 98 million miles away and building our own. We are all inclined to forget that the mineral hydrocarbon fuels that we so carelessly squander today are the product of energy from that distant nuclear reactor; millions of years of sunlight, acting by photosynthesis, fixing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and depositing it as rotting vegetation. It has then taken hundreds of millions of years of geological time to transform that vegetable product into the hydrocarbon fuels we are familiar with today. Now we seem to be intent on using up as much of it as we can and returning the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in the short space of two or three centuries. Is it any wonder that the climate is reacting?
	The Motion itself calls for early decisions and, given the problems that we have heard about today and the difficulties of the planning process, which many noble Lords have mentioned, it cannot be considered to be a contentious one. However, the decisions themselves are another matter. Of course they have to be taken in different and usually difficult circumstances. The pressures on decision takers can be conflicting and are often mutually opposing. Short-term considerations prejudice long-term needs; consumer interests oppose producer interests. The huge mass of investment that is committed to the existing development and supply of energy to communities across the world creates an inertia and obstacle that makes investment in the new technologies necessary to reduce emissions more difficult to obtain on a competitive basis. Behind all that lies the malign influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has an income stream to protect because he is defending money that he has already committed to spend.
	The Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set himself up to lead the world in solving the problem of global warming, describing it as a matter which is probably the most important issue facing mankind. A growing global economy requires additional energy input which, in turn, will raise CO emissions for as long as we rely on mineral hydrocarbons as our main fuel source. It seems to me that if we aspire to lead the world in finding a solution to this difficulty, we should be leading the world in research into reducing CO emissions to the atmosphere; leading the world in creating systems that produce CO-free energy technologies or reduce CO emissions; and leading the world in creating administrative structures which will encourage these processes.
	How do we shape up? I am afraid that the answer to that question is a depressing one. Typical is the matter of biofuels, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford. It is almost two years since this House had a biofuels obligation written into the Energy Act. The relevant section, of course, was to be implemented by order, and order came there none. Many of our European neighbours, and countries such as Brazil and the United States, are far ahead of us. If I wish to find out about technological developments that will diminish the need to use mineral hydrocarbons in the future, I will have a much more interesting time if I look at the research programmes undertaken by the Department of Energy in the United States than if I seek information in this country.
	The same applies to developments relating to the hydrogen economy. If I want to find administrative structures that encourage domestic generation of electricity from wind or photo-electrics, I look on the European mainland rather than here. I recognise that we have a small programme of financial support which has been helping to develop these two aspects, but that is about to run out and so far, we have heard nothing about what is to happen in the future. Will the Minister respond to that in his reply?
	What have we done to clear the planning log-jam that bedevils the achievement of developments that are essential if we are to make our energy systems more efficient, more competitive and less environmentally damaging? We need more than studies; we need decisions, if we are to hold our heads up internationally. Why be afraid of them?
	I understand the problems that are involved when decisions commit scarce government resources. But we do not seem able even to take administrative decisions which have no direct cost in themselves. Why not change planning guidance to permit major new electricity generating capacity to be developed in reasonable proximity to major urban areas, enabling them more easily to supply heat to the community that at present goes to waste? Seventy per cent of domestic energy demand is for heating, and something like 60 per cent of the energy input in power generation is discharged to the atmosphere.
	Why not change the general development order to permit houses to install photo-electrics or wind generators, say up to 5 kilowatt capacity per house, and then make any surplus power generated saleable to the grid if it is more than the house can consume? Of course these matters are controversial, but procrastination simply defers and worsens the problem that we all face.
	I recognise that actually doing things will have costs if there is to be any effect in the end, and it is the public who pay. However, studies of the costs of the consequences of global warming suggest that they may well be greater than the costs of tackling the problem. An interesting example is the Thames barrage, which protects London from tidal surges. When constructed, it was expected to be raised perhaps once a year. At present, it is raised between five and six times a year, and it is expected to become inadequate altogether within about 30 years. The cost of raising the level of protection for the future is considerably less than the cost of any damage likely to be done if that barrage is seriously overtopped. That is widely recognised. There is a wide awareness and concern among the public about the issue, but they feel helpless, uninvolved and unable to assist. Lack of government decisiveness suggests to most people that the problem is not urgent. Some of these changes might help to overcome their scepticism, persuading them that the Government really are concerned. We might begin the process of transforming public attitudes and the way we approach energy matters.
	I came across a quotation from Winston Churchill criticising the government in the 1930s when they were faced with a different sort of crisis. It describes that government's lack of decision with clinical precision, saying:
	"They go on in a strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent".
	There is nothing more to say.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on initiating this important debate. I extend my congratulations to the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and my noble friend Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, who made one of the most robust and interesting maiden speeches that I have heard in my short time in this House.
	In preparing for this debate, I was struck by a phrase which crops up on the first page of the report of the Environmental and Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament on Climate Change. The phrase was:
	"If we go for business as usual . . . we are destined for something unimaginable".
	The original source of that phrase was the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The report continues by saying:
	"Stabilisation of the climate at tolerable levels of change requires at least a 60 per cent reduction in 1990 CO emission levels by 2050".
	I am glad that the Government, in principle, seek to be "on the path"—I think the phrase is—to achieving that.
	The Minister may recall confirming what I put to him on a previous occasion when discussing similar issues—namely, that on a "business as usual" basis, without a dramatic change of policy, by 2020 there will have been no decrease in the percentage of our electricity being generated from fossil fuels. That is even if we manage to achieve the ambitious target of 20 per cent of our electricity supply coming from renewables by that date.
	At present, roughly 20 per cent of our electricity comes from nuclear power on a UK basis. Interestingly, it is almost twice that figure in Scotland, though the report to the Scottish Parliament barely mentions nuclear power. However, by 2023 all bar one of Britain's nuclear power stations are set to close. Over the same time frame, the currently very modest level of renewable energy is targeted to rise, to take its place—not to deplete fossil fuel use. So unless there is a change of policy, almost 80 per cent of our electricity generation is set to remain coming from carbon sources.
	As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships' House, I strongly believe that a decision is overdue to reassert the importance of nuclear power in our overall energy mix. In France, some 80 per cent of electricity is produced from nuclear, and an additional 10 per cent or so comes from other carbon-free sources, mostly hydro-power. The French seem rightly proud of this; every French household is provided with this information by Electricité de France on every electricity bill.
	Decisions will have to be taken soon—in the lifetime of this Parliament—on new generating capacity. For two decades or more there have been very few major new investments in capacity, and old plants cannot have their lives prolonged indefinitely. The time lag to bring new capacity on stream, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, is likely to be several years, with delays being imposed by the rigours of the planning consent processes. So the initiation of the development of fresh capacity becomes an increasingly urgent problem, as many commentators are rightly emphasising.
	Of course there are issues which have to be addressed, the long-term treatment and disposal of nuclear waste being not the least. The findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, when it reports, will probably be controversial. I am assuming that the committee will recommend burying the waste in carefully engineered sites in areas of geological stability. But wherever that might be, it is unlikely to be greeted by brass bands locally. By the way, may I ask if anyone in Government is taking up Bob Hawke's idea of the middle of the Australian desert becoming an international nuclear waste disposal facility? It sounds a very interesting idea. I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, might still be in his place, or might have referred to that in his maiden speech, as he has just returned from Australia; but perhaps that would have been too controversial.
	One should not treat this subject too light-heartedly because, sooner or later, a decision about disposal there will have to be. That would still be true even if the nuclear programme were not restarted, because of the increasing amount of high-level waste being generated from the plants which are operating now, or are being decommissioned. However, the development of a fresh generation of nuclear plants does not change the nature of the problem. Nuclear waste is here to stay and must be dealt with. The volume of it is not really the issue. While thinking of international solutions, perhaps there is an opportunity for closer co-operation within the European Union on these matters. France and Finland face the issue, as well as us.
	Cost is an issue too. Unlike in the very early days, no one now pretends that nuclear power is "free". However, as the recent research conducted for the Engineering Employers' Federation appears to have shown, nuclear power will be competitive if gas and carbon prices are high. Who would now want to bet on the future security of supply of cheap fossil fuels? Those days are surely over. Energy efficiency is important—that is not denied. It has been estimated that up to half the 60 per cent CO reduction target could be achieved cost-effectively by improving energy efficiency. It could be, perhaps, but whether it will be is much more doubtful. Some energy-saving measures actually serve to stimulate domestic consumption. Some of the more outlandish claims made for carbon reductions from energy efficiency are unlikely to prove as effective as their proponents—me included—want.
	Surely the biggest issue which should impinge on the mind of the Government in conducting their welcome review of energy policy ought to be the question of greenhouse gasses and climate change. What the Government could do is set a zero or near-zero carbon obligation on energy providers and, consistent with being satisfied that there is security of supply, let the market determine the exact balance between the competing no-carbon sources. At the end of the review, the Government must take a clear lead on this issue, to create—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, at the Anglo-Norwegian Conference—
	"a stable fiscal and regulatory environment",
	which will encourage the absolutely necessary investment in future green energy sources.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am nearly one of the most junior Members on these Benches, a mere bantamweight, and generally I speak late during these debates. It is a good position, because at this stage nearly everything has been said, and I agree with nearly all of it. The exception, of course, is the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who carefully delivered her interesting and important speech wearing her smartest sandals. I may also have to have a chat later on with my noble friend Lord Liverpool about nuclear waste disposal options.
	The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, in his excellent and informative maiden speech talked about the costing of nuclear power. Accurate costings are needed to reduce uncertainties, in particular the cost of nuclear waste disposal. That is a major uncertainty and a deterrent to new build. I believe that decommissioning and waste disposal costs of new build must be securitised, at least to some extent, in order for politicians and the public to have confidence in developers' plans. Unfortunately, in the eight or nine years since the Sellafield rock characterisation facility planning problem arose, the Government have made snail-like progress. That is despite the 1999 Select Committee report of your Lordships' House and despite the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, admitting to me at the Dispatch Box that there was no viable alternative for nuclear waste disposal other than a geological one.
	All noble Lords listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. He remarked that it was important not to confuse new build with finding a solution for the waste problem. Of course, he is right but I have an anxiety: I believe that it is vital that the decision process is consecutive, with waste first, and not concurrent. The reasons are to facilitate accurate project costs, to facilitate the securitisation of those costs, and to secure public support for new build, and, most importantly, to force the public to wake up to the perils identified by noble Lords today and discard the Greenpeace approach of leaving the waste on the surface vulnerable to interference or even a breakdown in society, which I think is an understated risk, and, most cunningly, a reason why you cannot have new build. I fear that we have already left it too late to decide these matters consecutively or even in time.
	My noble friend Lord Goodlad in his excellent maiden speech talked about removing the mystery of nuclear power, simplifying the issues and providing the public with what he called unvarnished facts and clear policy options. My noble friend must have recently read the 1999 Select Committee report which identified the importance of public education in the matter of nuclear waste. I believe that we must start a period of intense public education now and for at least 18 months' duration—and not a quick and dirty three months so-called "consultation" shortly after a winter blackout. In order to give some comfort to my noble friend Lord Liverpool it is worth pointing out that the 1999 Select Committee considered that the arrival of the next ice age was geologically imminent, but I am convinced that phased deep geological depository is the answer.
	Finally, I had a "pop" at the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She correctly identified that CO emissions from transport operations are a major source of CO pollution. In aviation I believe that we are stuck with liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future. However, for land systems, particularly private individual transport, in the long term—and that is what my noble friend's debate is about—we should be looking at hybrid or hydrogen power systems. But both would vastly increase the demand for electricity, and how would that be met without either nuclear power or continuing high levels of CO emissions related to transport operations?

Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have two points to try to restore his address to what I would regard as a semblance of reality. First, of the currently-committed subsidy for wind power, half of that sum is enough to meet the total cost of a nuclear programme to save the same amount of CO. Secondly, I commend him on his thirty years' late reading, but things have changed quite a lot since 1976.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate today. She clarified that the debate was about the early policy decisions required to deal with long-term energy problems. That has been amply shown this afternoon by all the excellent speeches. We have heard so many experts on the subject that I am loath to put in my twopenn'orth, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me.
	It is also interesting that, by and large, this has been a non-political debate. We are all well aware that we all bothered by the problems of climate change and security of supply, and it behoves us that we should work together. So I congratulate all those who have spoken today.
	It is perhaps something of a cliché to call this a timely debate, but indeed it is—for two reasons. First, we have heard of the warnings advertised in the press by the National Grid and Ofgem about the danger of gas shortages if the winter is a severe as has been suggested. Secondly, despite the authoritative source of those reports from the National Grid and Ofgem, the Government dismissed them as somewhat "alarmist". Then, a few days later, the energy Minister, Mr Wicks, said that, although consumers would have fuel if that arose, it could affect companies and industry. That was emphasised again this week in a Question in this House.
	I remind the Government that their own 2003 energy White Paper and the Energy Act 2004 impose on them an obligation to ensure the security of supply. Over recent years, in addition the the passage of the Energy Act, many debates and questions on that very subject have been raised in this House. The Government's policy—or, perhaps, lack of it—is hampered by the fact that it is trying to do several, not necessarily compatible, things at once. As long as 15 months ago, your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee, in a renewable energy report, agreed with the identical conclusions of the environment Select Committee in the other place. It said that,
	"to pretend that all four goals [of reduction of carbon emissions, enhancement of security of supply, improving business competitiveness and reduction of fuel poverty] can be achieved simultaneously is a cop-out: the Government is not facing up to the real issue . . . some . . . trade-offs will almost certainly have to be made".
	It is how we approach those trade-offs that is important.
	The Government's policy is to rely mainly on gas and wind power. That puts us in competition with the equivalent needs of our European neighbours and makes us vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It is important to note that our own gas supplies are running down, and importing has an adverse effect on our already ballooning balance of payments. Perhaps when the Minister replies he can tell us what steps the Government are taking to increase our storage capacity from 11 days to the EU average of 52.
	Another major string to the Government's fuel supply, of course, is wind power. In the Government's eyes, wind power kills two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it provides power from a renewable source; on the other it helps us to meet our CO reduction obligations. However, we must think about whether the ecological benefits of this power are counterbalanced by many environmental disadvantages. Offshore wind farms, while having advantages of scale and potentially higher output than those on land, are more difficult and expensive to install and maintain. They can be a hazard to shipping, fish, birds and seals.
	Onshore wind farms also have major disadvantages, in that they are intrusive and noisy. Currently, Mr Wicks's department within the DTI has overridden planning procedures in two county councils, two district councils, 12 parish councils, English Nature, the RSPB and other agencies to permit 26 370-ft turbines to be built on Romney Marsh. They will be visible for 20 miles and, apart from the cables, six and half miles of new roads will have to be built.
	Wind power is a far from reliable source of power. I would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that I am not knocking it. I am simply putting it in the context of the whole basket. The simple point is that wind does not blow all the time, whether in exposed beauty spots around the country or off the North Sea coast. Even if the countryside were virtually covered from top to bottom, they would work at only about a third of their potential capacity. That means that they need back-up from more conventional power stations. That is the experience of both Germany and Denmark. It cancels out, in part, the reduction of our CO reduction emissions, which the Government keep talking about and which we want to happen. It has to be borne in mind, however, that it is a total package.
	Every one of your Lordships who has had to fill his or her car with petrol knows only too well how oil prices have rocketed; equally so for all transport operators, who in the end pass the cost on to the customer; equally so for those who are dependent on oil for fuel, to run generators or for simple heating. Demand is currently rising in the United States, not merely seasonally, but because of their strengthening economy and everybody's love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles—I hope none of your Lordships have them, or you are going to be cross with me.
	China's requirements have risen by 20 per cent in just one year. China's current 21 million vehicles are set to increase to a staggering 390 million within the next 25 years. Then there is India, as well as the emerging third world countries. Oil companies are maintaining low strategic oil stocks for economic reasons, which makes the market vulnerable to events such as the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere, to say nothing of the chaos in the market caused by an ongoing struggle between the Russian government and its major oil company. We have also seen oil used as a political weapon in the Middle East. It is so used today by terrorists, even disrupting supplies from Iraq.
	The IMF has projected that worldwide oil consumption will increase from the current 82 million barrels a day to almost 140 million by 2040. An IMF economist forecasts an oil price of up to $56 a barrel. There are also plenty of commodity speculators and hedge funds out there, whose gambling with oil futures is distorting the market. We cannot leave our fuel supplies linked so strongly to yet another commodity—oil—over which we in this country do not have control.
	There is also coal. The problem with coal, of course, is the emissions. Useful as it clearly is, and will be for some time, one has to realise that. For the future, however, modern clean coal technology makes our own coal—or imported, less sulphurous types—more economic and environmentally sound. The technology for clean coal available in this country is urgently needed by China and would, in itself, be an excellent currency earner. I do not see anything in the Government's policy to encourage that. On the contrary, the carbon tax—the climate change levy—is a distinct disincentive.
	On wave power, the technology is being developed, but with woefully scant subsidy from the Government. I find it paradoxical that the DTI's website disparages wave power on the grounds of noise, impact on shipping, visual impact and so on when those are the very same disadvantages it ignores when pushing offshore wind farms.
	The report of your Lordships' committee on energy efficiency berates the Government's position on energy efficiency as being muddled and inconsistent. What steps have the Government taken in the past 15 months to implement the committee's recommendations on measuring the contribution that energy efficiency makes towards us meeting our emission targets?
	I want to turn nuclear power, a subject mentioned today and during previous years by many noble Lords. The Government cannot keep ducking the issue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is no good saying that we should not ask for a quick answer because we have already been waiting and waiting. But so that he should not be too cross with me, I congratulate him on his new position at the Combined Heat and Power Association. There is a sizeable cross-party group of Peers—I could mention the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, Lord Ezra, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Tombs—who are to be commended for their persistence in continuing to raise this matter.
	In Answer to a Written Question tabled by me, the Minister stated that,
	"a market-based approach is the best way of delivering energy security"—[Official Report, 23/2/05; col. WA 209.]
	With respect, no prospective generator will stick its head over the parapet and propose to build a new power station without knowing in advance, and before spending a fortune on preliminary professional fees and land acquisition, that the project will have the wholehearted, unequivocal support of the Government. And not just support, but active encouragement. In an article in this month's Business Voice, all that the Secretary of State for the Environment could do was to repeat the stale mantra that all options, including nuclear, should be kept open. I have a simple question to ask and all I want to know is whether the answer is "yes" or "no". It is important that we short these things out now.
	First, I ask noble Lords to forgive me for not having mentioned all today's contributions. I know I have 20 minutes, but I do not want to bore everyone. All the contributions have been valuable, especially those of the two maiden speakers. I particularly liked the emphasis placed by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, on the basket of different things. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that we do not want to throw anything out; we just want to keep what we have and encourage people to do more of the same.
	The question to which we want an answer is: do the Government want new nuclear power stations built just before our present ones run out of steam? If the answer is "yes", will the Minister remember that he also told me that it takes from 10 to 15 years from the decision to build to the time when generation can begin? How much of our power resources must we lose before the present stations are to be replaced? And if they are not replaced by nuclear, by what will they be replaced, and at what cost to the environment and the economy?
	My noble friend Lord Attlee dealt most adequately with the problem of nuclear waste. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, was right to tell us there is waste already—old waste. But the Government should not use that as an excuse not to go nuclear in future. Doing so will cause far less waste and we have to make a decision on the old waste anyway. That needs to be considered.
	I shall conclude in a moment or two, but I want to say that I had a letter from my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She was called away and cannot be here for the end of the debate. Because she is not here, I want to say one thing which I would be embarrassed to say if she were. I know that many noble Lords do not agree with parts of what she said. One of the beauties of this House is that we can all say what we want to say. The noble Baroness believes it all so passionately and we should give credit for that.
	Time does not permit me to mention, except in passing, other essential elements in our fuel supplies—combined heat and power, biofuel, microgeneration and biomass, referred to so expertly by my noble friend. The fact is that in every aspect we have been discussing, the Government's love affair with wind and gas seems to exclude everything else from immediate decisions.
	I shall conclude by paraphrasing our position, which was set out next door in an Early Day Motion by my colleagues. The truth is that they cannot discuss it down there. But, I thought I would paraphrase the Motion so that noble Lords know the problems we have with not getting anywhere. We are concerned about the security of supply for electricity in the medium term, about the failure of the Government to reduce CO emissions, and that the United Kingdom's indigenous oil and gas supplies are running down and that by next year we will be a net importer of gas. We believe that any increase in the use of coal-fired generation in its present form will have significant environmental consequences.
	We are concerned that the renewable target for this year is not being met and we are concerned that the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, commencing in 2008, will give rise to significant shortfalls in our electricity supplies. So, we call on the Government to make a decision shortly on the future role of nuclear power and set out a timetable for action that will reconcile economic and environmental objectives. That is not too much to ask. I thank everyone for listening.